Thee plans all propose to reduce carbon emissions but they differ greatly in the pace of change proposed. As we will see they also differ in how they think they will get there. The figure plotted is the proportion of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions as a percentage of the 1990 baseline.

click to see larger version

Below is the table of data that sits behind the graph. To give a common basis for comparison I have had to interpolate some date and also because SEAP uses 2005 for its baseline year I have converted their figures to a 1990 basis.

1990

2005

2020

2030

2050

Carbon reduction target (target CO2e as % of baseline)

SEAP

100

95

62.7

38

11.4

UK carbon budget no. 3

100

95

66

45

20

ZCB 2030

100

95

40

0

0

WWF / ecofys

100

95

70

30

0

Welsh Assembly

100

95

60

44

24

The important points are:-

Both WWF and ZCB2030 propose a reduction to zero net carbon emissions while the three government sources do not envisage this.

As a result ZCB and WWF both have a more rapid decline in emissions, and this is critical – you have to look at the area under the line to understand the continued build up of greenhouse gases. The ZCB plan notes that in the developed countries we need to go faster than the average because of our per capita higher emissions.

Rather lost in this summary are the assumptions. ZCB in particular combines an an ambitious reduction in energy consumption (Power Down) with plans to replace the use of fossil hydrocarbons. They also take account of land use emissions. The government’s carbon budget does not include clear targets to Power Down. WWF also propose a reduction, but to 85% by 2050 rather than ZCB’s 50% by 2030. David MacKay in his book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air makes an identical proposal to that of WWF – it is good they propose powering down, but this is likely to be too little and too late. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the difference between WWF and ZCB in terms of CO2e put into the atmosphere?

Neither ZCB nor the WWF propose the use of Nuclear.

Here are some additional comparisons. They are less complete due to the gaps in some of the plans (to be slightly charitable here, the government has noted that there are a number of possible pathways to its inadequate 80% 2050 target). I have added David MacKay’s projection on reduced energy consumption and the SNP government’s impressive target for production from renewables (although it would be difficult to generalise from the Scottish case to the NW).

Increase in renewable production

SEAP

2

6

ZCB 2030

100

WWF / ecofys

100

Proportion of energy from fossil hydrocarbons

ZCB 2030

0

0

WWF / ecofys

0

SNP

0

Energy demand (%) of baseline)

SEAP

UK carbon budget no. 3

ZCB 2030

50

WWF / ecofys

100

85

MacKay

100

85

Here the lack of ambition of the SEAP report becomes clear. While they do leave out some areas of potential change as outside the scope of the Greater Manchester decision makers / local authorities / AGMA, nevertheless the very limited renewables projection really requires challenge. Likewise the lack of clear and challenging power down targets. On the positive side, there are some indicators that if applied will enable us all to track progress within the bioregion.

This point about Power Down is absolutely crucial. We now know very well that increases in energy efficiency, if not accompanied by clear proposals for powering down will just mean that more energy overall is used. This is called the Jevons Paradox. Why so important in the North West now? Because of the new threat of exploitation of the Bowden Shale for gas. This involves natural gas, trapped in shale rock, that has to be extracted by a process of pressurised injeuction of huge quantities of water, sand and solvents, called fracturing. As this preliminary report from the Tyndall Centre makes clear, exploiting this resource may have some significant risks (although the methods being used in USAnia that have caused such concern will -probably- not all be used here), but most important will (despite the propaganda from the prospectors) have a negative impact on greenhouse gas production, delaying necessary action.

So far as I can see AGMA’s environment commission hasn’t commented on this burning (well not quite yet) issue on our doorstep – further argument for a bioregional approach rather than focussing on the urban conurbation as the definition of the subregion. However, the Co-op (which funded the Tyndall research), the Green Party and the Labour Party have opposed the drilling (the latter provisionally. Of course the risks and assessments have been ignored by our golpista prime minister.